Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So one solution would be to simply remove the check entirely. It was a > slight nicety in some situations, but expanding the definition of the > HTML path to include full URLs means we can no longer accurately > determine what exists and what does not. So we can just stop trying and > let the browser handle it completely. This, and "://", both sound sensible. > Another option would be to introduce a new "net" type of help format > which accepts a URL instead of a path. That would leave the existing > code-path untouched. But it does seem needlessly complex, as it would do > more or less the same thing as the "html" format. Yeah, that does not sound like a good reason to have such a complex scheme. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html